Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Lexington Insurance Company

Filing 14

ORDER that the complaint in this action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ORDER that the plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than 8/31/13 (please see attached order for complete information). Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 8/21/13. (TLJ)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 Lexington Insurance Company, 14 Defendant. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-13-01505-PHX-PGR ORDER 16 In a complaint filed on July 25, 2013, the plaintiff alleges that the Court has 17 subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.1 Having 18 reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that the jurisdictional allegations therein are 19 insufficient as a matter of law to establish the existence of diversity of citizenship 20 jurisdiction. The Court will therefore require the plaintiff to file an amended complaint 21 curing the pleading deficiencies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. 22 Since it is to be presumed that a cause of action lies outside of this Court's 23 limited subject matter jurisdiction unless the contrary is established by the party 24 25 26 1 Although the complaint further alleges that “[j]urisdiction is also appropriate under 28 U.S.C.A. §2201[,]” the Court notes that it is well established that § 2201 is not a jurisdictional statute. 1 asserting jurisdiction, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 2 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1677 (1994), the Supreme Court has long since, and 3 repeatedly, made clear that 6 [t]he established rule is that a plaintiff, suing in federal court, must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court, on having the defect called to its attention or on discovering the same, must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment. 7 Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338, 339 (1926). The plaintiff has 8 not met its jurisdictional pleading burden because the complaint fails to affirmatively 9 set forth the facts necessary for the Court to determine the citizenship of either party. 4 5 10 The jurisdictional allegations concerning the citizenship of the parties are 11 facially deficient because they merely state that the plaintiff is “a Wisconsin 12 corporation doing business in Maricopa County, State of Arizona” and that the 13 defendant is “a Delaware corporation licensed and doing business in Maricopa 14 County and doing business in Maricopa County, State of Arizona.” 15 corporate party is a citizen of the state by which it was incorporated and of the state 16 where it has its principal place of business, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), diversity of 17 citizenship jurisdiction is not properly set forth in a complaint unless all of this 18 required information is affirmatively alleged. Since a 19 The plaintiff is advised that its failure to timely file an amended complaint that 20 cures these pleading deficiencies by affirmatively setting forth each party’s state of 21 incorporation and state of its principal place of business will result in the dismissal 22 of this action without further notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, 23 IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed for lack of subject 24 25 matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file an amended complaint 26 -2- 1 2 properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than August 31, 2013. DATED this 21st day of August, 2013. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?